Dear Susan, The description here seems unfair. The FCC has "taken on" the Internet for the past thirty years. Over that period, it exercised its jurisdiction and authority in innumerable ways to regulate the Internet and the associated technologies into existence. What is occurring today is an attempt to develop an appropriate new regulatory framework for a world of Next Generation Networking services of which the Internet is significant part. It is also worth noting that the European Commission and the Canadian government have instituted very similar regulatory proceedings, with almost strikingly similar frameworks. This a global phenomenon - not unlike other numerous other shifts that have occurred over the decades as revolutionary technology based infrastructures have scaled to become nationally critical. The statement that "...the FCC appears to be asserting that although there isn't a compelling rationale for applying traditional "economic" regulation to providers of IP-enabled services (paying for universal service, paying interstate access charges, filing tariffs, etc.), they're considering using their ancillary jurisdiction to apply "social policy" regulations....." seems really off the mark. What they said is that they don't want to apply common carrier regulation to IP-enabled services. As an alternative, they are considering tailored mandates applicable to defined classes of services. That seems rather appropriate. Indeed, the preponderance of the 150 entities filing comments in the proceeding reached the same conclusion! This process of developing classes of IP-enabled services and applying tailored mandates was bugun several years ago. One of the best examples was an effort lead by MCI to have the FCC exercise its authority to create the "IP Relay Service" as a means of obtaining universal service and other funds to provide messaging capabilities for the hearing impaired. Was there something wrong with that? The list of "what the IP-enabled services rulemaking is about" seems not only skewed, but incomplete. The notion that the FBI is seeking "to make designs subject to approval" is also really unfair. If you read the combined law enforcement petition, it says nothing of the sort. The full list of *possible* mandates includes: o public safety (E911) needs o disability assistance (IP Relay Service) o law enforcement support o competition (Computer III/number portability/1996 Act requirements, LNP) o fraud prevention o restoration after failures o call prioritization during emergencies o privacy and data protection o consumer protection against unwanted intrusions This list, incidentally, is a composite of industry operations and public policy concerns that have long existed and been typically applied to every communications service of any significance. The current environment currently goes well beyond the "Internet." It includes legacy networks, nomadic wireless technologies, and next generation networks. If you want any evidence of market failure, consider what the current SPAM rate is for a frequent user today. (Mine is one attempted SPAM per second.) The bottom line here is that since the beginning of communications history, platforms grow up and become subject to rules subject to adult technologies. The same is occurring here - worldwide. --tony